Can you point to me which amendment in the Bill of Rights said "women not being allowed to vote shall not be infringed," and "the upgrading of darkies from 3/5ths a person to one whole shall not be undertook?"

Most guns are. I mean, I can't name a gun designed to shoot hugs and kisses at hundreds of feet per second. Can you?

NewportBarGuy:If you need a rifle with a 30 round clip to go hunting, there are two reasons why:

1) You are a sh*t shot.

Well, most people that go hunting don't use an AR-15 with 30 round clip magazine, as it's against the law (varies state by state). Although there are high volume hunts, such as varmint hunting, in which it's legal and useful to use a 30 round clip magazine

NewportBarGuy:2) You harbor fantasies of a world collapse, invest in gold, listen to Glenn Beck, and want to overthrow they tyrannical government,

Or it's fun to shoot, a good home defense weapon, or any other legal uses

NewportBarGuy:Frank N Stein: You think a cop's sidearm is used to look cool or something?

Clever. No. I know all of the semantics of the "debate". Frankly, I'm sick of it. If they outlaw it, I'll gladly give up my AR-15. There really is no need for me to own one.

The semantics and vernacular of the debate, while pedantic at times, serve to illustrate who can articulate what they want to ban, and why. As they should be well versed on the topic, lest the come off sounding somewhat as stupid as say, ol' legitimate-rape Todd Aiken. Now I know you know what you are talking about regarding guns, and I respect your educated opinions even though I don't share them. But frankly, I'm sick of the ignorance that we see in these debates.

FEAR them? What the f*ck is the matter with you? They are combat rifles. They are designed to kill people. That is a simple fact. Just because you choose to ignore their design purpose, does not make you any less stupid for asserting their noble qualities.

If you need a rifle with a 30 round clip to go hunting, there are two reasons why:

1) You are a sh*t shot.2) You harbor fantasies of a world collapse, invest in gold, listen to Glenn Beck, and want to overthrow they tyrannical government,

Semantics is all anyone has if we want to understand what each other is talking about. We have to use the correct terms for things. We can't just decide that we want to start using an INCORRECT term for something and assume everyone will know what we're talking about.

Seriously, the people that biatch and whine and yell out "SEMANTICS IS ALL YOU HAVE!!" when they are corrected on terminology when trying to discuss this subject are being idiots. If you want to talk seriously about this, and try to find solutions, WE ALL HAVE TO BE SPEAKING THE SAME FARKING LANGUAGE.

After all of these threads is there really anyone left here that doesn't know there is an actual difference between a "clip" and a "magazine"? Is there anyone left that doesn't understand that "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" are not the same thing? Yet people still insist on using incorrect words and get their panties in a bunch when corrected.

fark it. The ones who are being willfully ignorant can keep on keeping on. Call a magazine a diddly-dooder and call an assault rifle a blangity-blang. What's it matter? It's just semantics after all.

Perhaps we should refer to assault weapons ban advocates as "child molesters". Should they protest, we will be able to accuse them of arguing "semantics".

"There was slavery 150 years ago, therefore the federal government should be able to institute an official religion"

Cool argument, bro.

Love it when people pick and choose parts of the Constitution.

It's sooooooooo creative.

There is a process to fix the Constitution if it is indeed found to be wanting. The founding fathers weren't fools, they knew that times change and the Constitution would have to be "adjusted" to those times. We've done it to fix the problem of slavery, for example.

So, if the people owning arms is such a bad thing, pass an amendment repealing the Second Amendment.

Passage of a Constitutional Amendment is a difficult procedure, requiring attaining of substantially more support than is typically available. Merely lying about the implications of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, or simply advocating ignoring sections of the Constitution that are arbitrarily declared to be "obsolete" or "outdated" enables advocates of unreasonable restrictions upon firearm ownership to more effectively attain support for their position.

violentsalvation:NewportBarGuy: violentsalvation: ut frankly, I'm sick of the ignorance that we see in these debates.

I don't even share my own opinions. I would like to keep my AR-15, but Cletus here is making absurd arguments. I resign myself to the lowest point, and am surprised when they don't come knocking at my door.

I know that I'll be able to keep what I own currently. I remember, and the politicians remember what happened the last time they 'took' guns. This is a ridiculous argument.

All sales, private and public should be run through NICS. If they do just that, I'm happy. Any responsible gun owner should want that,

I could get on board with that, as long as the expanded NICS isn't going to be some ridiculous hindrance to private party sales with a 30 day backlog or anything.

There are other ideas but they are shouted down, I guess for simply accepting the reality of the situation and not being idealistic enough. I'd like a tax credit considered for purchasers of approved and properly installed gun safes. Or at least I'd like to talk about it and hear other ideas other than my penis is small. But that's how these debates go.

I've always wondered why so few people get the idea of ginormous "penis by proxy" that lovers of big government get off on. If some guy loves his Hummer and therefore is compensating for a small penis, then someone who loves Big Government is compensating for an even small penis.

NewportBarGuy:Frank N Stein: But Fark told me that AR-15s were designed for the sole purpose of killing as many people as possible in the quickest amount of time.

Because that is entirely accurate. The AR-15 is designed to put down human beings in short fashion. That is exactly what it was designed for.

Your point?

Are we next going to ban swords, since they actually have no purpose other than killing other human beings as well?

Actually the AR-15 and similar are extremely good at taking out smaller mammals and provide many people with an excellent quality, general purpose hunting rifle that doesn't need to be reloaded every couple of minutes. Do people NEED one? No. But do people NEED a vehicle that can go over 65-70 mph? No. Do you NEED to indulge in a package of Oreos? No. Do you NEED a latte in the morning? No. Yet, vehicles, fatty fast food, and caffeine contribute directly or indirectly to more health problems and deaths in the US than "assault" rifles and we're not banning those things either.

Stop the whole "it looks mean!" bullshiat. You really want to stop mass killings, go to the source, not a tool.

Allow me to piss off both sides of this argument by pointing out that these "assault weapons" are jive-ass toys.They take a low-powered, innaccurate semi-auto carbine and festoon it up with "military" features that are useless to anyone but a soldier in the field, and sell it for a fat markup.They have two real functions - to con the dollars out of stupid, macho gun-fappers pockets, and to scare the shiat out of ignorant liberals who don't know anything about guns.That's all they are especially good for - that and enriching those who make and sell them.

Frankly, I'd be embarrassed to be seen with one of the things - in my mind, they all look like this:

muck4doo:Kids. Don't listen to these men. Fire a Makarov. Fire a Walther. One fits your hand and fires beautifully with 9x18 ammunition. The other bites the web of your hand, fires like shiat, and costs hundreds dollars more. It also fires .380 ammunition. Yeah, the choice is clear. If you want to try to pretend to be James Bond buy a crappy Walther.

violentsalvation:Doesn't mean I'm going to question his military record like an asshole.

Sorry, I've lived through FLYNAVY and Wife-Like Typing guy. If he was actually in the military, I'll apologize to him. But there are plenty of people on FARK who claim to be in/have been in the military who are blatent liars about it.

I do tend to question anyone who calls a magazine a clip and then claims to have been in the military.

I never said they deserve "modern sporting rifles" more than anyone else. But nice putting words in my mouth.

At any rate, I don't have to "say" anything. I can show you. Your kind gets off on watching cops (It's pigs, right?) get murdered, so I figured I'd provide you with some jerk material. (NSFW) That fight was ended by a Game Warden using his M-4 in a particularly bad-ass way.

Considering MPD's Organized Crime Unit pulled an actual LAW off the streets of Orange Mound in a raid last year (not the tube, but an actual, live LAW) as well as regularly going against bangers armed with automatic weapons, I'm pretty okay with them carrying ARs. It is quite literally an arms race out there with criminals.

And it's our fault because of the war on drugs, yes. But that's not likely to change soon, is it?

I don't get off on seeing anyone die. I live near signs that say this:

So I understand that some cops might need a patrol rifle to effectively do their job safely. So yeah, I disagree with bar guy on that. Doesn't mean I'm going to question his military record like an asshole. Yes, I dislike almost all cops, but I've encountered a few who are actually in it to serve their community.

GUTSU:Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: violentsalvation: NewportBarGuy: violentsalvation: ut frankly, I'm sick of the ignorance that we see in these debates.

I don't even share my own opinions. I would like to keep my AR-15, but Cletus here is making absurd arguments. I resign myself to the lowest point, and am surprised when they don't come knocking at my door.

I know that I'll be able to keep what I own currently. I remember, and the politicians remember what happened the last time they 'took' guns. This is a ridiculous argument.

All sales, private and public should be run through NICS. If they do just that, I'm happy. Any responsible gun owner should want that,

I could get on board with that, as long as the expanded NICS isn't going to be some ridiculous hindrance to private party sales with a 30 day backlog or anything.

There are other ideas but they are shouted down, I guess for simply accepting the reality of the situation and not being idealistic enough. I'd like a tax credit considered for purchasers of approved and properly installed gun safes. Or at least I'd like to talk about it and hear other ideas other than my penis is small. But that's how these debates go.

Have you considered penis enlargement surgery? That would have a 0% chance of butchering 26 kindergarteners.

It must be nice dancing on the graves on children. Tell me, are you also wearing cleats?

NewportBarGuy:Fark It: You tell us, soldier, you're the one who swore an oath to protect and defend it with your life.

Unless you're lying about that too.

What the f*ck? I now work for the Veterans Administration making sure vets get their medications. Disabled vets like myself. Making sure we take care of those we sent into battle, their widow, orphans...

Go f*ck yourself.

What was your MOS? Where did you do basic and what year did you do it? What was your first duty station?

violentsalvation:NewportBarGuy: violentsalvation: ut frankly, I'm sick of the ignorance that we see in these debates.

I don't even share my own opinions. I would like to keep my AR-15, but Cletus here is making absurd arguments. I resign myself to the lowest point, and am surprised when they don't come knocking at my door.

I know that I'll be able to keep what I own currently. I remember, and the politicians remember what happened the last time they 'took' guns. This is a ridiculous argument.

All sales, private and public should be run through NICS. If they do just that, I'm happy. Any responsible gun owner should want that,

I could get on board with that, as long as the expanded NICS isn't going to be some ridiculous hindrance to private party sales with a 30 day backlog or anything.

There are other ideas but they are shouted down, I guess for simply accepting the reality of the situation and not being idealistic enough. I'd like a tax credit considered for purchasers of approved and properly installed gun safes. Or at least I'd like to talk about it and hear other ideas other than my penis is small. But that's how these debates go.

Funny thing, did you know that if more than 10 firearms backtracked by law enforcement, the FFL that sold those firearms has to give the ATF the personal information, and records of sale of every single person that have dealt with to the ATF? Now imagine if every private sale had to go through a FFL? It's backdoor registration.

NewportBarGuy:Fark It: You tell us, soldier, you're the one who swore an oath to protect and defend it with your life.

Unless you're lying about that too.

What the f*ck? I now work for the Veterans Administration making sure vets get their medications. Disabled vets like myself. Making sure we take care of those we sent into battle, their widow, orphans...

Go f*ck yourself.

You need someone to make sure YOU get your meds, You seem off your rocker dude.

Fark It:You tell us, soldier, you're the one who swore an oath to protect and defend it with your life.

Unless you're lying about that too.

What the f*ck? I now work for the Veterans Administration making sure vets get their medications. Disabled vets like myself. Making sure we take care of those we sent into battle, their widow, orphans...

I thought so, <b>Frank</b>. There is nothing defensible about the AR-15, AK-47, or any other weapon designed primarily for the killing of human beings. "But, it's only single-shot!" Yeah. Wow. You can get the people who know nothing about guns to scratch their head at that, not those who know the weapon.

Three-shot burst vs. no-three-shot-burst... There is no such thing as a fully automatic M4 that is issued to combat MOS in the armed forces that are not SOCOM.

The argument about "machine gun"... total bullsh*t. It's not a "machine gun". SAWs fill that role.